2026:CGHC:12510 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6063 of 2024

1 - Manharan Lal Sahu S/o Dhani Ram Sahu, Aged About 56 Years Working On The Post Of Daily Wages Employ (Security Labor) Posted At Harethi Nursery, Forest Range-Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.)

... Petitioner Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Chief Conservator Of Forest, Aranya Bhawan, Medical College Road, Raipur, P.S. And District- Raipur (C.G.)

3 - Conservator Of Forest, Bilaspur Circle, Office At Conservator Of Forest, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

4 - The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division-Champa, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

5 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Forest) Sub Division-Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.)

6 - Forest Range Officer- Forest Range- Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.)

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate For Respondents-State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

ORDER ON BOARD

16/03 /2026

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

“"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Respondent No. 6.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner for regularization of the service of petitioner as early as possible.

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue direct the respondent authorities to finalize the case of the petitioner for regularization vide memo dated 09.08.2008 within stipulated period.

10.4 Any other relief/ or relief's may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed on 01.01.1995 and since then, he is continuously working as daily-wage employee till date. As of now, petitioner has completed but not regulerized about 30 years of service as daily-wage employee but not regularized. Petitioner submitted representation for regularization of his services based upon which, the respondent initially forwarded the case of petitioner for consideration and appropriate action/order to the higher authorities which till date is not replied nor any decision has been taken and therefore, direction be issued to the respondent authorities to take decision on the claim of petitioner at the earliest.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State would submits that according to her instructions also, the claim of petitioner has been forwarded from Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Champa, Janjgir Champa to the higher authorities and the claim of petitioner for regularization is pending consideration before the Chief District Conservator of Forest.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the counsel for the Respondents/State that the claim of the petitioner is pending consideration before the higher authorities, direction be issued to the said authority i.e. Chief Conservator of Forest to take decision on the claim of the petitioner for regularization at the earliest within specified time. He also contended that the similarly situated employees namely, Naresh Kumar Patel and Navin Kumar Mehta has been regularized in service vide order dated 18.09.2024 and therefore, direction be issued to the respondent authorities to consider and take decision on the claim of petitioner keeping in mind the order of regularization issued in favour of other two similarly situated employees.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

6. The grievance of petitioner as projected in this writ petition is that they are continuously in employment since last